Sargun:sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.

Pretty much. It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't my government that's doing it. What the fark is wrong with people?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectlythe other party is in office.

durbnpoisn:I actually saw McCain on the news this morning saying something to the effect of, "The US will look like a bunch of chumps if we don't do something". Really?! Maybe we should not have drawn a line for them to cross. Then we wouldn't have to make good on our threats.

I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.

fireclown:durbnpoisn: I actually saw McCain on the news this morning saying something to the effect of, "The US will look like a bunch of chumps if we don't do something". Really?! Maybe we should not have drawn a line for them to cross. Then we wouldn't have to make good on our threats.

I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.

sign_of_Zeta:Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

ontariolightning:fireclown: durbnpoisn: I actually saw McCain on the news this morning saying something to the effect of, "The US will look like a bunch of chumps if we don't do something". Really?! Maybe we should not have drawn a line for them to cross. Then we wouldn't have to make good on our threats.

I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.

How so? Why didn't the USA directly help Saddam Hussein do just that?

We are also the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon against an enemy. Civilian targets no less. Twice.You can debate the signifigance and the need of that all you want. But if that happened today, and/or it was another country that did it, there would be hell to pay.

TheDirtyNacho:Nadie_AZ: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.

*scoff* "Our Country". Petty tribalism like that holds humanity back more than anything else. Humans are humans. Something should be done.

And yet we want to build a massive wall to keep our southern neighbors out. While they struggle with drug cartels and poverty. Got it.

Unfortunately if it cant be bombed or cruise missile'd, this government doesn't have the balls or tenacity to tackle it.

When did Congress (lead by either party) last have a spine and actually declare war since Korea?

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Nadie_AZ: So suggesting we pay for the war and have a draft to fight it are now equal to going Starship Troopers?

Just as likely. When have we ever had a tax just to pay for one individual thing? I guess you could say Social Security and Medicare but those go directly into the general fund.

Remember War Bonds were voluntary

That's the point though, if they can't raise the funds through the general public, that ought to tell you something about the general feeling on a war. Would you rather we just do it off the books again and take it out of general tax dollars later?

Ned Stark:sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

Ned Stark:sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Yes, because I know that rifles do not work on chemical weapons and that an American Citizen found to be fighting with rebels would cause an international incident, I feel no responsibility. Got it.

I am realistic about my importance on the Global Stage. My way to help is to voice my opinion to the government, and to give to charities helping refugees, which I have done.

mainstreet62:Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

So, to keep the YSG from bombing the shiat out of people tosave them and let Syrians see to their own affairs?

Yes I would agree that there is a degree of moral responsibility there.

mainstreet62:Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

UrukHaiGuyz:mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

UrukHaiGuyz:This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

If Kerry meant to reference the local villain in that part of the world, maybe he should have conjured up Hulagu Khan, Chingis's grandson, whose forces massacred most of the citizens of Baghdad, then one of the leading cities of the world, in 1258.

It's no worse a mispronunciation of Genghis Khan, than, well, "Genghis Khan." The actual name is "Чингис хаан." A better romanization, and the one used in Mongolia now, is "Chinggis khaan." And the "kh" in "khaan/khan" is more like a harsh "h" sound, like in "Chanukah" or "loch."

Genghis Khan 's a hero in there (well, Outer Mongolia, at least) of almost mythological proportions. Statues and depictions of him are everywhere, and his name is plastered on pretty much everything, from vodka to airports. I really mean pretty much everything. When I lived there my bank was Chinggis Khaan Bank.

I'm not really sure what the deal is in Inner Mongolia. It's under China's control, so it could be completely different.

"Chingis" seems to be a popular name in Kazakhstan and in surrounding areas, if this link is any indication.

UrukHaiGuyz:Sargun: sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.

Pretty much. It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't my government that's doing it. What the fark is wrong with people?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.

fireclown:UrukHaiGuyz: This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Such as? Let's get some options out on the table y'all!

I'm not talking about Syria. It's a clusterf*ck we have no business intervening in any more than the Ottomans had a duty to intervene in the American Civil War. Disaster relief worldwide,however, could keep the military fully engaged and employed year round, if our actual goal was to relieve human suffering and save lives, as opposed to blowing sh*t up to enrich defense contractors in choice congressional districts.

UrukHaiGuyz:mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Most people don't. People donate clothes and food to charity, their time to service projects, and provide disaster relief to others.

Honestly, peoples' goals should be to limit suffering. We can never stop all suffering, but allowing someone to commit mass murder via chemical weapons is about as high on the suffering chart as you can get.

BTW, it makes me laugh to think what Ned Stark would say to the guy using his name .

Bontesla:UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.

Pretty much. It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't my government that's doing it. What the fark is wrong with people?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.

ontariolightning:fireclown: durbnpoisn: I actually saw McCain on the news this morning saying something to the effect of, "The US will look like a bunch of chumps if we don't do something". Really?! Maybe we should not have drawn a line for them to cross. Then we wouldn't have to make good on our threats.

I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.

How so? Why didn't the USA directly help Saddam Hussein do just that?

If you don't think that the US can hold two opposing views then you're probably going to have a bad time.

UrukHaiGuyz:mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.

How do you fight someone who obviously does not give 2 shiats about people and uses WMDs on them? From Doctors Without Borders and forthcoming UN reports, there will most likely be proof coming that he did use chemical warfare.

Bontesla:UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.

Pretty much. It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't my government that's doing it. What the fark is wrong with people?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.

Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

fireclown:UrukHaiGuyz: This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Such as? Let's get some options out on the table y'all!

I don't think it's possible to end the violence but there are things that can be done to limit it.

The US doesn't have to pick sides. BSAB. Why not just implement a Berlin like wall? We've certainly learned a few things that were poorly done.

mainstreet62:UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.

How do you fight someone who obviously does not give 2 shiats about people and uses WMDs on them? From Doctors Without Borders and forthcoming UN reports, there will most likely be proof coming that he did use chemical warfare.

IamAwake:Magorn: So those of you who want us to do nothing are basically okay with giving world leaders carte blanche for war crimes and genocide?

Scenario: you live at 631 Mockingbird lane in Suburbia, USA. You find out that two cities (continents) over, there's a street where a father is brutally beating up his children indiscriminately, and that he's doing it because he has a teenage son that is violent and prone to destructive behavior himself; just last week, that son caught an old lady's cat, stuffed it with m80s, and exploded it all over the lady's front porch.

For what ever reason, we have a very powerful neighborhood watch program on our street over here. It is so powerful in fact that it spends most of its time patrolling other neighborhoods - generally even in other towns. "Those of us who want us to do nothing are basically saying" that our neighborhood watch program has absolutely no moral reason to be patrolling other neighborhoods, especially those two towns over. We could support and strengthen the county sheriff - who would have jurisdiction over there - but instead we actively undermine them, making them unable to do much more than send a letter. The best (and only) thing we actually do for the sheriff is give them a safe place to make their offices; otherwise, even the population of our neighborhood mocks the sheriff's office. The other option is to offer aide to the town constable over where the problem exists.

But yes - we're saying that we shouldn't just load up our pickup trucks, drive over there, and vigilante-style lynch all those involved. We've gotten quite the reputation for doing that on a regular basis, and every time we've done it the situation only got worse. Let's try having this one go the ethically correct way for a change, and see how that works out.

That analogy only works if you acknowledge that the COuntry sherrif is an arthritic, aging functionary who was put in place by powerful quasi-criminal groups specifically to be ineffectual. He's basically Sylvester Stallone in Copland

sign_of_Zeta:UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a Honestly, peoples' goals should be to limit suffering. We can never stop all suffering, but allowing someone to commit mass murder via chemical weapons is about as high on the suffering chart as you can get.

BTW, ...

What is the big deal about 'chemical weapons' ? Why is it better to allow mass murder using machetes or rifles or AK-47s or crack cocaine or tobacco?

UrukHaiGuyz:Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.

Pretty much. It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't my government that's doing it. What the fark is wrong with people?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.

Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.

How do you fight someone who ob ...

You don't even know that Assad did it. The last time an American secretary of state opened his big mouth about WMDs, he was lying. And you suddenly believe it this time?

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.

How do you fight someone who obviously does not give 2 shiats about people and uses WMDs on them? From Doctors Without Borders and forthcoming UN reports, there will most likely be proof coming that he did use chemical warfare.

And we are supposed to do nothing?

I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, were not charitable. We're talking about the actions of the United States, though. And yes, as sad as it is, we do nothing, because the fallout from us intervening puts the responsibility on our shoulders for the continuing outcome. We can't just pop in, blow sh*t up, and get out with no repercussions, and many of the people we'd be saving (including innocents) bear us no good will, and would resent our trying to shape their future for them.

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.

How do you fight someone who ob ...

You don't even know that Assad did it. The last time an American secretary of state opened his big mouth about WMDs, he was lying. And you suddenly believe it this time?